Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the payload components (elements, qualities, seats, sub-doshas, states) and reveals the joinable field qualityGunas. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is valuable. It does not discuss translation fallback or failure modes, but the parameter schema covers the language behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states scope and payload; the second states the intended use case and a cross-join hint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only single-resource tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description together with the schema is complete. It tells the agent what data comes back, when to use it, and how to relate it to another domain entity. No critical operational details such as auth, destructive effects, or pagination are relevant enough to be required here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents id, lang, and compact. The description adds the qualityGunas join hint, which enriches use of the returned data, but it does not add semantic meaning to the parameters themselves. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return one dosha with its elements, qualities, seats, five sub-doshas and three states.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_ayurveda_doshas (plural), which presumably returns the whole catalogue, and from get_ayurveda_qualities/tastes, which target different concept sets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit use context: 'Use it to render a dosha card or a glossary entry without pulling the whole catalogue.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over fetching all doshas, and the phrase 'without pulling the whole catalogue' implies the alternative of using the plural list tool. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating when not to use it, so it loses a point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.